1 - Ravi Chouhan S/o Madan Chouhan Aged About 30 Years R/o Shyana, P.S v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9074 of 2024 1 - Ravi Chouhan S/o Madan Chouhan Aged About 30 Years R/o Shyana, P.S. Shyana, Buland Shahar Uttar Pradesh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate : Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge) Order on Board 08/01/2025 1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 75 of 2024 registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 34 of the I.P.C., 1860. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.01.2024, a written report was lodged by complainant alleging that two person, namely, Ram Kishan Verma and Punit Joshi gave her call on the mobile phone from different numbers stating that they are employees of State Bank of India and are doing work of insurance. Against her earlier policy, she can take new policy and all the amount of benefit of insurance policy will be disbursed at the time of her retirement. Taking complainant in 2 confidence, they asked her to deposit amount in different account numbers and thereby she deposited about Rs. 70,00,000/-. First amount which was deposited was of Rs. 50,000/- on 12.07.2017. However, when she asked for the return of the amount deposited by her, said persons Ram Kishan Verma and Punit Joshi tried to avoid her and thereafter put off their mobile phones. Based on the report, aforementioned crime was registered against said two persons. During investigation, Police searched one call center at Noida and applicant was also arrested from call center along with others on 07.02.2024. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in custody since 08.02.2024.He contended that other co-accused persons have filed application for grant of bail in MCRC No. 7485/2024, 7583/2024, 7687/2024, 7807/2024 and 7815/2024. Said applications were decided by common order dated 18.11.2024 wherein counsel appearing for applicants made a submission that during trial, complainant has been examined and she in her statement has categorically stated that she has entered into settlement with the accused persons out of the court and further that application for compounding of offence is also filed before the trial court and placed certified copy of the application in this regard for perusal of this Court on the said date. He submits that considering submission of learned counsel for applicants therein, bail applications filed by co-accused persons MCRC No. 7485/2024, 7583/2024, 7687/2024, 7807/2024 and 7815/2024 were allowed vide order dated 18.11.2024. Case of applicant is also on similar footing, hence, he may also be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that in the deposition which was 5. 6. 3 relied upon by the counsel for applicants in bail applications of other co-accused persons, there is categorical statement that at the instance of Ram Krishna Verma and Punit Joshi, amount has been deposited in the account. He further contended that there is one more criminal antecedent against applicant of similar nature registered at Police Station Rohtak, Haryana. He however submits that the deposition of complainant that she has entered into settlement with accused person, is subject matter of appreciation by the trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for applicant based on the statement of complainant that she has entered into settlement with the accused persons out of the court, period of detention, offence alleged is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and further that other co- accused persons i.e. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Divya Kumar Sharma, Rishab Chauhan, Manjesh Chouhan, Neeraj Singh and Tarak Bishvas have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 in MCRC No. 7485/2024, 7583/2024, 7687/2024, 7807/2024 and 7815/2024, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that - (a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be 4 open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Certified copy as per rules. Shayna Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE